David Cameron’s speech on “extremism” and segregation

The “Right Honorable David Cameron, MP”, Prime Minister of Great Britain, gave a speech entitled “Extremism”. What Cameron truly meant was “Islamism”. I have been thinking about writing an essay on Cameron’s thought processes. As astrophysics Professor Coel wrote well on it, I decided to use his analysis instead. Coel concludes: Cameron’s speech is “seriously flawed by a lack of joined-up thinking”.

In other words, although Cameron makes some progress out of the Politically Correct abyss, he ends up all entangled in contradictions between his logic and his policies.

I will assert the following complements to Coel’s work. As Coel points out, the Islamist State, and, more generally Fundamentalist, knife-between-the-teeth, Islam is close to the essential violence found in the Qur’an, and the Hadith. I have documented this pretty well, over the years. Both sacred texts recommend to torture and kill all sorts of “non-believers”, and those deemed not to “believe” anymore (“apostates”).

“Belief” is in the eye of the beholder, thus, if one kills “apostates”, fanatical Islamists will have to spend lots of time killing Muslims, as observed.

Last point: attacking “extremism” in general, promotes silliness. Any thought process starts by considering extremes. This is true in poetry, philosophy, science, and even technology. All and any creative thought process, and, a fortiori, the thinkers who hold them, can be, correctly, viewed as “extremism” at some point, early on. Thus the very title of Cameron’s self-contradictory attack on Islam is embarrassing: if the aim is to get rid of “extremism”, without further characterization, we may as well get rid of any creative process.

The West, and, more generally, civilization itself, whose supremacy was historically founded upon victory on superstition and fossilized thinking, need more from their so-called “leaders”, be it only to tackle the CO2 crisis (and the wars if could lead to).

The title states that “Prime Minister David Cameron set out his plans to address extremism”. What sort of extremism? Well, we all know that we’re referring to extreme versions of Islam, though many politicians are reluctant to spell that out. Let’s see how Cameron fares.

Early on he declares that “Today, I want to talk about … how together we defeat extremism”. It is another nine sentences before he overcomes the “Voldemort effect” and actually names it:

“And because the focus of my remarks today is on tackling Islamist extremism — not Islam the religion — let me say this.”

Well done! Islamist extremism (even if it is accompanied by the hasty and obligatory assurance that Islamism is nothing to do with Islam).

23 Responses to “David Cameron’s speech on “extremism” and segregation”

A) For all Muslims, the Quran is the absolute foundation of their lunacy. They believe in it, they force their kids to study and recite it for long hours. Anyone questioning and especially criticising it can be in big trouble, including sentenced to death in many Islamic countries.

OK so far?

B) It was inspired by a man of violence and is full of violence, absolutism, bigotry and hatred. (just read it).

Well, given A & B, what conclusions can be drawn by any normal, rational and unbiased person?

Dear Chris: Cameron, at age 19, was in the same group of 20 silver spoon boys as the present rather opinionated mayor of London. Pictures of them together posing in suits worth thousands of pounds is a sight to behold. No intellectual performance necessary.

To Cameron’s credit, he went further than any of our unenlightened great leaders did on the subject of Islam. Saying something against Islam, in a country such as France, is, typically, supposed to be viewed as racist, by most the people who hold the Main Stream Media. I am afraid their intellectual performance is even worse than Cameron’s. This is why more and more voters feel like choosing Ms Marine Le Pen.

Dear Kevin: The main problem, as I see it, and as you seem to see it too, is to make the intellectual class realize that equating critique of (Fundamental) Islam with racism, is imbecility of the highest degree. It is also racist, because we did not apply the same method to Catholicism, indeed.

Its attitude relative to Islam is not, by far, the only treacherous position of the alleged, self-proclaimed intellectual class. The attitude relative to money, banks, European construction, or so-called colonialism are others (on the latter, thanks to the self-critique of people like Kouchner, things are starting to change).

Under Louis XVI, in spite of the king (weak) will, not enough changed, and the king lost control. (The situation in Britain, a century earlier, was even murkier.) Now, of course, the stakes are much higher.

Phil says:
July 26, 2015 at 3:31 pm
I think we all agree completely the government should not be controlling speech except in rare circumstances where a direct threat of imminent violence is presented etc. The issue of contention seems to be what our relationship should be with speakers who may be seen as controversial by some members of the public.

My fellow members appear to feel that while Charlie Hebdo is legitimate in criticizing others, it’s not legitimate for others to criticize Charlie Hebdo.

I don’t need to argue with you guys, as that would interrupt you arguing with yourselves.

Charlie Hebdo was very careful to criticize Islam, or Islamists, in ways that could only be reproached by murderously inclined idiots just out of the fanum (temple in Latin, hence fanatics).

For example one of the four covers or so, about Islam, out of hundreds of covers on other debatable subjects, represented someone one could guess was the so-called “Prophet” hiding his eyes, and saying: “It’s tough to be loved by idiots.”

Only idiots would be offended. Only idiots would find that such a cover is “anti-Islam”.

The Charlie Hebdo crew was extremely anti-racist, and far-left. Less than 1% of the covers was about Islam. More than 99%, a scathing critique of the plutocratic system. “Criticizing others” is exactly what this sort of French press is about. And this has been going on, for at least five centuries.

Rabelais’ critique of the Catholic church was more violent and keen to make Catholicism grotesque, than Charlie Hebdo ever was about Catholicism and Islam. This is how the West got rid of religious fanaticism, and it’s high time for another dose of the treatment, the religious bug having mutated enough to not be recognized as the infamy it is. As Voltaire said: “One must crush infamy!”.

Charlie Hebdo is not hateful. You are trying to say it is. But you failed to read what I wrote. Instead you accuse me of “hateful secular extremism”. (What did I do to you, that you accuse me of being “hateful”? Is it that you cannot do without accusing people of hatred?)

Charlie Hebdo is tender and affectionate with those perverted by religion. You, instead, are interested to tell us that Charlie Hebdo is full of hatred.

It’s a traditional method of those full of anger: they accuse those they want to persecute of “hatred”. The method was used against Jews for centuries. So you tell me that representing Muhammad crying “It’s tough to be loved by idiots,” is a mark of hatred. I claim that such an extreme interpretation of such an innocuous cover is itself extremist…

What seems to interest you, is to have an enemy in Charlie Hebdo, full of hatred in your mind, A magazine to some extent written by Muslims (and its assassinated chief’s girlfriend was, is, a famous Muslim politician and lawyer).

The tradition of the satirical magazine, as I said, is more than 5 centuries old in France, it’s central to the French character. This is why France is a Republlc, instead of an official plutocracy (*monarchy”), It’s also why France originated the Human Rights charter, now central to the United Nations, and made it so, that the USA became independent.

The international campaign against French satire does not help Muslims, but it sure helps plutocracy and those who hate the French Republic. It is itself a hateful drive.

By the way, there is well in excess of five times more people of Muslim origin in France than in Great Britain, and most of them are perfectly integrated. About half of the individuals killed during the combined attacks against Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish market were black, Muslim, or Jewish. Please tell me about their hatred for Islam, I collect examples of curious thinking.

Genetic markers show that massive numbers of Muslims were integrated in French society, as early as the Eight Century. Secularism does not have to be hateful. It’s only the hateful who are obsessed by hatred, and not interested by anything else.

Posts such as yours always lead me to wonder about the crowd of useful idiots every fanatical conspiracy not only attracts, but relies upon. The best that can be said about this weird phenomenon is that even idiots need to feel useful.
I am not unduly abusive. By mouthing the same idiotic platitudes the politically correct ignorants of American academia, who could not be bothered to actually read a single issue of Charlie Hebdo, you chose your side.
Kevin’s wording is entirely correct – Islam needs to be potty-trained, like the Church was, to take its place in civilized nations. Islam gone feral, like the Church gone feral, can only be subdued by violence – the legitimate violence any democratic State has a mandate to use on behalf and in protection of its citizens, including its Muslim citizens who are in greater need of protection than the rest of us. And I know a great many Muslims who feel exactly that way.
The alternative is non-State violence, civil war. A bit more than one century ago, long lines of priests and nuns were gunned down in ditches by Mexican revolutionaries. Not a pretty sight.

I don’t think he will answer. Those who hate first declare that those they want to hate are full of hatred. So they cherish that hatred they claim to condemn, and invent it, if necessary.

France is full of millions of people of Muslim origin who are fully aware of the abuse those who brandish Literal Islam want to visit on them. Those people want to potty trained Islam. The academia of the USA is more interested on burying France, as a dangerously independent civilization.

Why there (nearly never) was an anti-Islam revolution in the lands Islam controlled (with the partial counter-example of Ataturk’s Turkey) is probably because Islam was too good a weapon for autocrats. The Frankish tradition was anti-clerical. The Franks made their own bishops…

Phillip Helbig says:
July 27, 2015 at 6:33 am
This goes back at least to the Mohammed cartoons in the Danish newspaper. As some have pointed out, the protest, which tried to paint itself as spontaneous, was well organized: many more Danish flags were burned than had even existed in the corresponding countries before. In other words, they were imported especially for burning in televised protests.

The proper reaction would have been that all newspapers print one of the cartoons on the front page until Islamic terror stops. How many newspapers reported on this, but didn’t reproduce the cartoons for fear of offending someone?

Phillip: There has been a failure of the intellectuals to maintain the Enlightenment. As I tried to explain in some of my essays, the drive of the USA to control Middle East oil, passed through a deal made with the Saudi family in 1945. Basically the government of the USA got the oil, the Saudis and then the Shah got full power, implemented with the help of religious terror. The proceeds of oil sales were re-invested in Wall Street and London.

Intellectuals who went along with that scheme saw their fame and careers grow. The CIA paid journalists and editors of renown to create the proper ideology (more than 50 were on payroll of the CIA, in France alone, including the most famous). So now to frustrate in any sense the ideology of Muslim Fundamentalists of the worst type is viewed as racism, by the Politically Correct. It is reminiscent of past attitudes of much of the intellectual class relative to Nazism or Stalinism. We need some spine, and some mind.

“The (Muslim) Ottoman Empire, for instance, was one of the most tolerant places bordering with Europe for centuries, while many (Christian) European countries themselves were busy suppressing or violently expelling religious minorities, including different flavors of Christianity. ”

And some people are clapping hands for it. I am desperate. If a scientist can write such a disinformation, what will say others?

The real thing what happened was that the Ottoman sultans became half retarded because they grew up in harem among women held in captivity and eunuchs, until the time came they could take over the throne. Yet in 19 century, the Serbs, the Greeks, the Bulgarians, practically the whole Balkan had to go thru bloody repressions of uprising until they got their independence.
Was the Ottoman empire created with feather or arms?

Dear Eugen: Not only I read it, but I sent a long comment. Although NOT on that precise point. My aim was to get published, not censored (Scientia Salon has censored me dozens of times, and it’s a painful process, and extremely time consuming, as they do not tell you what’s wrong with the comment precisely, so one has to spend some time figuring out what it is they don’t know which they object to!).

Anyway you can read down and “like” my comment! 😉 (I am probably going to put it here, although all it says, I have said before!) My comment pointed out some of the main truths about the Ottomans. As I said, it went through.

Massimo, a prestigious philosopher in New York, and a scientist himself, wrote the piece. You have to understand, it’s a big progress for him: he is crypto religious, to some extent, at least emotionally.

What the rosy view of the Ottomans is about is attached to a precise point: the fascist racists, Isabella of Castille and Ferdinand of Aragon, got from their compatriot the Pope Borgia, the authorization to set up the Inquisition. So in 1496, the EXPELLED ALL JEWS FROM SPAIN. (Muslims would be expelled 35 years later or so.) The Ottoman empire welcomed that superior, often highly intellectual class, with open arms. They established themselves in particular in Northern Greece (where they will mass convert to Islam in the 18C, after an unfortunate Messiah incident, where the Messiah was forced to convert to… Islam)… And Istanbul.

You speak about Shabtay Tzvi. Unfortunately for the Jews, from time to time appeared a new Messiah with huge impact on the human history. Then the Jews had to recover from him for centuries. You have also today such guys, who claim to be the Messiah. Some of them pretty dangerous.